I forgot that ceammc has its own version of fluid~ and it is distributed via deken. Well, I see no dynamic lib for fluidsynth in the package, so I can only assume it loads it statically... not sure if the authors will pick this up here, but I guess I'll ask them directly...

Em qui., 7 de jan. de 2021 às 03:07, Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com> escreveu:
The license is being respected (I think?). I didn't touch it, see https://github.com/porres/pd-fluidsynth/blob/main/LICENSE.txt and, well, I do think I could make a variation of this in my ELSE library, but I'd keep the license untouched anyway. Thus, the bump in the way is still learning how to statically link a complex project like this...

So, I started a new thread to announce the test builds for mac/windows, but it all seems fine. Now, what about Linux? There's mo magical scripts for linux, why? I guess Linux handles the dependencies nicely via apt-get and stuff, but what about sharing this via deken?

cheers

Em qua., 6 de jan. de 2021 às 09:43, Christof Ressi <info@christofressi.com> escreveu:
> static linking has *legal* implications:
> you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library under another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
For the sake of clarity, the same is also true for dynamic linking!

IOhannes knows this, of course, I just figured his comment could've
accidentally left some people with the impression that it's ok to
dynamically link a GPL library to a permissively (or even commerically)
licensed project.

Now, libfluidsynth is actually LGPL v2 licensed. The LGPL has an
exception which allows to link a LGPL library to a permissively (or
commercially) licensed project. Many people seem to think that LGPL only
allows for dynamic linking, but it's also possible to link statically
under certain (more strict) conditions:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LGPLStaticVsDynamic

***DISCLAIMER***: This is just my understanding of the situation.
Anybody feel free to correct me on this!

Christof

On 06.01.2021 09:52, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
> Am 6. Jänner 2021 03:39:00 MEZ schrieb Alexandre Torres Porres <porres@gmail.com>:
>> Personally, I strongly prefer static linking for plugins (like Pd
>>> externals).
>>>
>> seems best for me too!
>>
> well, apart from bloat (speaking with my system packager hat on), static linking has *legal* implications:
> you cannot just distribute a binary that statically links a GPL-library under another license (eg the dwtfyw license).
>
> are you prepared for doing your homework here?
>
>
>
> mfg.hft.fsl
> IOhannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list



_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list